Maclean's: America dumbs down

[darkbeaver]

Tecumseh, it was a national poll - says that right in the article.

Angstrom, I agree that we require intelligence to survive, but it is a naturalistic fallacy to assume that this is the determinant factor for intelligence. We invariably have a higher rate of intelligent beings now than when we did when fighting to survive.

And as a society we wouldn't be too smart if we were always fighting for our survival.

What makes you think we don't have to fight for survival these days? What makes you think we live so close to nirvana today. Can't you look at the modern constant state of war and understand that we are maybe not as advanced in the humanities as you seem to believe? Thirty millions were murdered by the USA in unlawful wars since the close of the second world war. Where's the progress? If there has been progress it has been exactly in the wide distribution of dumbness plain brown paper ignorance. The movers and shakers have designed and managed it to be so. They have progressed while the rest have regressed according to plan. It's not just Americans consider Blackleaf fer instance.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

#1 is only a logical fallacy if you didn't read the entire article. The introduction of the article with the story from South Carolina is called a hook. The article went on to talk about Americans' perception of the big bang, evolution, the age of the earth, vaccinations, climate change, belief in death panels, belief in DNA, acceptance of the link between smoking and cancer, the disconnect between government intrusion on privacy matters and counter-terrorism, results from the education system, and even the dumbed down language used by politicians. Among the numerous others.

Sorry, Ton. The article was trying to draw a direct connection between the hook and the more general stuff. It's this type of illogical and dishonest trash that is the heart and soul of yellow journalism (which mentalfloss calls "fact").

To Colpy's point, yes America has some of the brightest minds and best schools, but that at the same time would be a non sequitur then to say that having the brightest minds and best schools means the country as a whole is accepting of scientific results and intellectuals in general, let alone even becoming more accepting.

Um. . . so f*cking what? Who cares what a truck driver thinks about Darwin? Surely it's more important what the country's molecular biologists think of Darwin.

As to the evidence, polls of opinion are always naked without the statistics. You're right that it would be nice to see more context. The journalist may have been getting pressed for words after expending so many on listing the many ways.

Here's an example:

1. Do you believe a woman should have the right to control her own body?

2. Do you believe women should have the right to kill their babies?

These two poll questions will produce wildly different statistics which will be presented as "America's Opinion on Abortion."

 

[mentalfloss]

What makes you think we don't have to fight for survival these days? What makes you think we live so close to nirvana today. Can't you look at the modern constant state of war and understand that we are maybe not as advanced in the humanities as you seem to believe? Thirty millions were murdered by the USA in unlawful wars since the close of the second world war. Where's the progress? If there has been progress it has been exactly in the wide distribution of dumbness plain brown paper ignorance.

It's more accurate to look at rates of violence rather than total number. The amount that died in Germany in WW2 for example, would be enough to wipe out entire past civilizations. But the rate of violent deaths in Germany actually went down when compared to before the war.

Even now as the population gets larger, the problem of systemic violence is only truly relevant if it increases in direct proportion. Globally, it has gone down since WW2, even with a slower growth rate.

We are continually trying to improve the situation and make the world more peaceful. And the world is that much safer now, that believing our intelligence is determined by survival need is a bit misplaced.


Tecumseh, obviously no polling is perfect. And by 'fact' I meant more the facts as proposed by the article. We will be hard pressed to find the ultimately objective facts but that doesn't mean discussion about what we do have is frivolous.

By the way, the second question your example doesn't actually address abortions. That is infanticide. The question should be about a fetus, not a baby.

 

[Angstrom]

Tecumseh, it was a national poll - says that right in the article.

Angstrom, I agree that we require intelligence to survive, but it is a naturalistic fallacy to assume that this is the determinant factor for intelligence. We invariably have a higher rate of intelligent beings now than when we did when fighting to survive.

And as a society we wouldn't be too smart if we were always fighting for our survival.

Yes I agree but survival is still the base root "the start"of that motivation that pushes us to be better.
And better is stronger more intelligent disciplined efficient.


Living in a vacuum where hardly nothing challenges us like we do today, won't naturally push us to be amazing human beings.
Most animals including the human will become amazing out of the need to be to survive.


Most humans will be content doing the least possible to survive and spend the rest of there time pleasuring themselves.
The poll is a indication of that natural human trend

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

By the way, the second question your example doesn't actually address abortions. That is infanticide. The question should be about a fetus, not a baby.

You're cute when you're naive.

 

[gerryh]

Tecumseh, obviously no polling is perfect. And by 'fact' I meant more the facts as proposed by the article. We will be hard pressed to find the ultimately objective facts but that doesn't mean discussion about what we do have is frivolous.

There are no "facts" in that article. Only slanted opinion and supposition. Some things are presented as if fact, but only those with an agenda, or a low IQ would consider any of it as "fact".

By the way, the second question your example doesn't actually address abortions. That is infanticide. The question should be about a fetus, not a baby.

No, really? You don't think that a poll with an agenda would present a question and then take it out of context when presenting the results do ya? :roll:

 

[mentalfloss]

Are you guys insinuating that the questions in this poll were written deliberately out of context?

 

[gerryh]

Are you guys insinuating that the questions in this poll were written deliberately out of context?

roflmfao

 

[mentalfloss]

Most humans will be content doing the least possible to survive and spend the rest of there time pleasuring themselves.
The poll is a indication of that natural human trend

We are more intelligent now than we were when there was a question of survival.

roflmfao

Well do you have any evidence or do you believe that general statements about polling make prove the case about this one?

Because it doesn't.

Sorry.

 

[gerryh]

We are more intelligent now than we were when there was a question of survival.

Not from what McLean's says...... or is just Americans are morons?

 

[Colpy]

We are more intelligent now than we were when there was a question of survival.

.

Good Lord, Man!!

No, we are not.

Study a little history..........or anthropology..........

If anything, we were more intelligent when we relied on our brains for survival.

Knowledge and intelligence are two different things.

 

[mentalfloss]

Not from what McLean's says...... or is just Americans are morons?

Probably just Americans, but even dumbed down Americans still have a firmer grasp in reality than some 'intelligent' members of older civilizations.

 

[gerryh]

Probably just Americans, but even dumbed down Americans still have a firmer grasp in reality than some 'intelligent' members of older civilizations.

Wow


At least when I used to do this, people KNEW I was trolling. You , on the other hand, I think actually believe this shyte.

 

[Colpy]

Probably just Americans, but even dumbed down Americans still have a firmer grasp in reality than some 'intelligent' members of older civilizations.

LOL!!

Yeah, that's right. The guys that lived in small community groups in hostile jungles and built a good life for themselves were idiots because they didn't have I phones.

The village historians that could list of the family histories and stories of the village back a dozen or more generations were real twits.


Once again, technology and knowledge are NOT intelligence, in fact, in many ways they limit intelligence.

 

[mentalfloss]

ITT we learn that rhetoric and purple make a convincing argument.

Meanwhile, people who burned witches at the stake and prophecies the end of the world are more intelligent than today's average American.

And you guys call me insane lol

 

[Tonington]

Sorry, Ton. The article was trying to draw a direct connection between the hook and the more general stuff.

That's not how I read it. The article is saying the incident in South Carolina is a symptom. A is a symptom of B, and then they listed C all the way to Z of other symptoms of B. You can't judge the article by the first paragraph, and say that they are stretching something from one state to apply to the whole, when the rest of the article is explicitly exploring other subject matters across the country. Like I said, it's only a logical fallacy if you ignore the 90% between the beginning and the end.

However, I for one don't think this is something confined to America, though America seems to be a little more hyper-partisan.

Um. . . so f*cking what? Who cares what a truck driver thinks about Darwin? Surely it's more important what the country's molecular biologists think of Darwin.

In most cases you're probably right. In other cases, if a policy proposal is voted on as in say, a ballot measure, then it matters very little what molecular biologists think if the rest of the population thinks the scientists are (insert label here). Or if a water resource management board has a new proposal, then it does matter if the citizens are well informed. Scientists are trained to evaluate risks, but if the public thinks the scientists and other experts are crazy, or wrong, or they just don't believe-for whatever reason- then it really does matter.

Here's an example:

1. Do you believe a woman should have the right to control her own body?

2. Do you believe women should have the right to kill their babies?

These two poll questions will produce wildly different statistics which will be presented as "America's Opinion on Abortion."

Absolutely, I agree on the fickle idea of opinion polls. But there's really no other way to ask questions about public opinions than to perform surveys. So the context for me is how the surveys were constructed, how the lists were generated, and how the surveys were administered.

On that note, I would also say that none of the results raised in the article are new findings.

 

[Locutus]

Just another standard hate-on-Americans from haughty so-called journalists, your intellectual and moral superiors.

protip: you'd want those 'retards' there to help you should Russia ever cross the border eh.

 

[captain morgan]

Just another standard hate-on-Americans from haughty so-called journalists, your intellectual and moral superiors.

protip: you'd want those 'retards' there to help you should Russia ever cross the border eh.

Ruskies wouldn't stand a chance... We'd out flank 'em using our superior moral compass that runs true (North Strong and Free) and then blind 'em with socialized medicine... At that point, MF can walk up unmolested and smack 'em silly

 

[mentalfloss]

Russia isn't going to invade us.

 

[Locutus]

Russia isn't going to invade us.

well certainly not while those ignorant Christian redneck hillbilly gun-slingers are around anyway.